Thursday, December 11, 2014

CBC'S RADICAL FEMINISM

Many Canadians are feminists. But few Canadians, or
Americans, for that matter, are radical
feminists. In fact, I can’t say that I know even one. I know of some, however, even of many. And they
work at CBC Radio, our public broadcaster. Should taxpayers who don’t even know
what radical feminism is be made to pay for radically feminist propaganda?
Taxpayers are obliged to pay 1.1 billion dollars per year to fund the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. Public broadcasting, if it should exist at all, ought
never to be used for promoting hatred.

CBC personalities regularly denounce misogyny: the
hatred of women. This is good, except that it is done while the other side of
each mouth spews misandry: the hatred of men. That is what radical feminism
always contains somewhere in its message: the hatred of men. What could be more
contrary to the mandate of a public broadcaster than to promote hatred toward
half the public? Isn’t public broadcasting supposed to represent everyone and
bring everyone together? Should taxpayers be paying big money to listen to
feminists putting men down?

Here is an example of the kind of content that
taxpayers are obliged, by law, to pay for. To discuss CBC’s favorite topic: the
ascent of women at the expense of men, a debate was moderated by Jian Ghomeshi
on his quaint program called Q (November
15th, 2013.) The debate was about whether or not men have become
obsolete. Imagine if a church moderated a debate on whether or not women were
obsolete? or maybe on whether they should get back in the kitchen in order to
solve the unemployment problem? Probably the church in which the debate
happened would be burned down and the pastors involved would go to jail. But
the CBC gets a free pass to preach radical, man-hating feminism. It won’t get a
free pass in this article!

Soon after the sinister debate began, one side
actually told the truth by calling it an ‘agreement-fest.’ As if discussing
such a topic were not wicked enough, CBC was careful to stack the deck to
ensure a one-sided conversation, or attack. And so the moderator and the two
debaters had lots of fun engaging in their man-hatred. A diatribe against men
by a trio of feminists must have been CBC’s proudest moment on that day. The ‘end of men,’ the ‘end of
patriarchy’—these are the golden calves that CBC cows are so often nursing. I
use the word ‘cows’ intentionally and without apology. “Their cow calveth, and
casteth not her calf” (Job 21.10.) This verse seems suitable enough. Feminists
are continually calving feminism in different forms, and then nursing these
unnatural offspring with all the care that is necessary for their growth. And
like cows do, these feminists are always regurgitating their old cud to chew on
and be self-satisfied by. To be fair, they did say that it should not be taken literally
that men might be obsolete. But you see, they could not resist the title they
had chosen because they are in love with the idea that the title signifies.
Radical feminists cannot conceal the provocative canker that grows out from
their hating hearts.

The man who moderated the debate (I use the word
‘man’ loosely) was Jian Ghomeshi, whose chief characteristic might be
uxoriousness: excessive submission to a wife (the CBC girls being his spiritual
wives.) What kind of man is willing to moderate a feminist-slanted debate on
whether or not men are obsolete? He must be, not only uxorious, but, if we take
Jezebel’s husband for our model, excessively immoral also. He will pretend to
blush at an obscene remark made by a conservative mayor, and yet not blush at
all to discuss the propriety of gay sexual intercourse on the stage of a
theatre!

[Since the Ghomeshi scandal broke, it seems that
Ghomeshi might be a reincarnation of Jekyll and Hyde. His Jekyll side hits
balls out of the park for feminism; his Hyde side just hits and chokes.]

There are other examples of radical hatred of the
male sex at the CBC. Feminists claim to be striving for equality: equal rights,
equal opportunity, equal pay, etc. But, in truth, they strive for inequality.
For example, in a lecture on blood, the lecturer complained about targets in
the form of women over at the National Rifle Association somewhere (CBC Radio, Ideas, November 14th, 2013.)
Supposing that such targets exist, should feminists not be glad about it? Since
radical feminists are the ones mostly responsible for getting women into combat
roles, and since they claim to believe that women and men should be equally
treated, why the madness against these targets in the form of women? Must all
the targets look like men? Not if equality is the aim.

Yet one more example of misandry at, and from, CBC
Radio. Examples must not be lacking considering that I gathered the three used
in this article over the course of a few hours in the space of one week. Piya
Chattopadhyay filled in for Ghomeshi on Q,
November 7th, 2013. What’s been on Piya’s mind? Well, Piya would
like to see Canadian women on Canadian currency: ‘on every last bit of it.’
Where is the sense of equality in that? This was no playful remark. The comment
was unleashed in a tone not unlike what one would expect to arise from an
embittered heart. What appalling, radical, man-hating misandry over at CBC
Radio! Anyone who would laugh her comment off and be okay with it is so cowed
by that monster regiment called feminism that there is little hope for him or
her to stand upright, ever. What percentage of Piya’s personal currency is paid
by manly taxpayers? Since men are supposed to be obsolete, maybe we should
minus that amount from her salary. Would Piya be relieved, or stressed, I
wonder, at the prospect of no longer being supported by men? Is it not worth a
big salary cut, Piya, to have your feminist dream come true? Come to think of
it, maybe Ghomeshi’s salary should be reduced to whatever sum gay persons will
give.

Why are radical feminists so entirely shrew-like? It
is because they suspect that the superiority of women will never be realized to
their satisfaction. No matter how much they try to rewrite history through
historical fiction and try to fashion a fantastic future by the novel, the
ghost of patriarchy past is always appearing to them like a foreboding specter,
and they are haunted by it. They know that women have never dominated the world
and that their dream, therefore, has no precedent from which to launch itself
into reality. Their hearts, because estrogen rules there instead of
testosterone, persistently remind them that they are not made to rule. To some
degree, or just enough to unsettle, the prophecy from Genesis 3.16 must be
written on every feminist heart, no matter how radical: “He shall rule over thee.” In the end (and this must the most
galling thing of all to feminists who are not comatose to Scripture), no woman
can be admitted into heaven without submission to the ‘Son of God,’ the ‘Son of
man,’ the ‘Man Christ Jesus.’ Heaven
will be comforting and blissful for an infinite number of reasons, not the
least of which is: no feminist will be suffered to rear a stubborn head there.
“The head of the woman is the man” (1 Corinthians 11.3) will one day, beginning
at judgment day, be the rule everywhere. Can I hear an Amen to that? Amen, and
Amen.